9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Includibility of the value of agricultural lands settled by the deceased in favor of his wife, including those lands settled by her in favor of her relatives. 2. Includibility of the value of properties settled by the deceased on his five settlees. 3. Includibility of the value of agricultural lands received by the deceased from another individual in the principal value of the estate. Issue-wise Detailed Analysis: Issue 1: Includibility of the Value of Agricultural Lands Settled by the Deceased in Favor of His Wife The court examined whether the value of agricultural lands settled by Ganapathy Subramaniam in favor of his wife, Kamala, and subsequently settled by her in favor of her relatives, could be included in the principal value of the estate passing on his death. The court referred to Section 10 of the Estate Duty Act and the Supreme Court's interpretation in George Da Costa v. CED, which requires that the donee must assume bona fide possession and enjoyment of the property to the exclusion of the donor. The court found no material evidence to establish that Kamala or her settlees took bona fide possession of the lands to the exclusion of the deceased. The formation of partnerships and subsequent transactions indicated that the deceased retained beneficial interest. Therefore, the court concluded that the value of the lands settled by the deceased on his wife and by her on her relatives should be included in the estate's principal value. The first question was answered in the affirmative and in favor of the Controller of Estate Duty. Issue 2: Includibility of the Value of Properties Settled by the Deceased on His Five Settlees The court considered whether the value of properties settled by Ganapathy Subramaniam on his five settlees could be included in the estate's principal value. The court noted that the deceased managed the properties as the managing partner of K.V.G.S. and Co., and upon the firm's dissolution, he took over the assets and liabilities. The court agreed with the Tribunal that the properties settled on the five settlees were effectively retained by the deceased, making Section 6 of the Act applicable. Even if Section 10 were considered, the donor was not excluded from possession and enjoyment of the properties. Therefore, the second question was answered in the affirmative and against the accountable person. Issue 3: Includibility of the Value of Agricultural Lands Received by the Deceased from Another Individual The court addressed whether the value of agricultural lands received by the deceased from P.S. Srinivasa Iyer could be included in the principal value of the estate. Given the answer to the second question, the court concluded that the value of the lands settled in favor of P.S. Srinivasa Iyer, one of the five settlees, should be included in the principal value of the deceased's estate and not in that of P.S. Srinivasa Iyer. The third question was answered in the affirmative and in favor of the Controller of Estate Duty. Conclusion: The court affirmed the inclusion of the value of agricultural lands settled by the deceased in favor of his wife and her relatives, the properties settled on the five settlees, and the lands received from P.S. Srinivasa Iyer in the principal value of the estate. Each question was answered in the affirmative, favoring the Controller of Estate Duty, with parties directed to bear their own costs.
|
